Here's a legit question: If the sun is under the dome and rotates above the flat earth, what is the closest and furthest away points of the sun from the dome's wall?
When the distance to the Sun is measured with a sextant it's about 3,000 miles. The Sun itself is not a physical object, it's holographically projected off of the domes mirrored surface and its position is dependant in part on the observer. However to answer your question based on my understanding, the Sun stays the same distance from the dome at all times. A few years back Japan tested the world's most powerful green LASER, they fired it at the north star Polaris and it bounced off the dome and hit Soldier Field in Chicago, IL. Using this LASER the distance to the dome could be measured with great precision. Once this has been done it would simply be a matter of subtracting the Sun's distance to get the distance between the Sun and dome. This is of course assuming the sextant is measuring the height of the projection and not just the point it reflects off the dome. ''The Sun itself is not a physical object, it's holographically projected off of the domes mirrored surface'' No it's actually a big banana that shines, see I can make retarded statements too without any proof! Rainbows prove there's a mirrored dome (biblical firmament) as water droplets will not form a significant rainbow without a highly reflective mirror (this is proven with an artificial light source indoors) and, the curve observed in rainbows outdoors proves the mirror is curved. With proof a mirrored dome are you still going to demand proof the Sun is a function of the dome? Yeah for sure, can't believe we didn't figure that out in thousands of years. |
|
|
|
What evidence would change your mind?
Are you attempting to make this a personal thing? The only evidence would have to be proof. And it would have to come in the form of proving that science was false. Why? Because it is science that proves that evolution doesn't exist.  Can you answer the question or not? What scientific evidence would convince you that the evolution is true? Can you read or not? Or is the problem you thinking ability? EDIT: Okay. Let me answer your question straight out. What scientific evidence would convince me that the evolution is true? The only scientific evidence that would convince me that evolution might be true, would be the same scientific evidence that proved that science was false. And that is exactly what evolution theory does. It is scientific evidence that proves science is false. This means that I believe the theory exists, not evolution. Are you retarded? Just checking, how much is 123+5=?, in base 118 system? I asked you for an example of evidence that would convince you that evolution is true. You cannot answer this question because you don't know much about evolution, don't you? He doesn't want to answer because last time when he said ''this would prove evolution to be real but we never found it'' and I gave him what he asked for, he then changed his statement to something else. He is scared to ask for something in particular because then his brain would have to work harder to ignore the evidence again. It's a classic badecker strategy. |
|
|
|
You only ''proved'' that those things indicate there is a creator/creators, nothing in your ''proof'' indicates that it has to be your particular god and not multiple gods, maybe aliens, maybe something else. So your proof, again, does not show it's god.
Well, no. That's not all. The fact that entropy hasn't turned everything into dissipated simplicity, shows that there was a Beginning to the universe, and that it wasn't too far in the past, cosmically speaking. Combine this with the fact that we haven't found anything that comes into existence, spontaneously, without something bringing it into existence - in fact, spontaneous generation without a source doesn't even make sense in our universe - shows that the universe had something else as its "starter..." something other than itself. This means that the Starter of the universe was not something within the universe. Since It was not within the universe at the time It started the universe - except that It might have injected part of Itself into the universe exactly at the time It started the universe - shows that it was "outside" the universe. What does outside-the-universe mean? It means that we know nothing about it. Why? Because we know things according to the way the universe works... not according to something that has no properties of the universe. We don't know if It (the Creator) is a being. We don't know if It has complexity. We don't know if It has more than one unit. We don't even know if the terms "one" or "multiple" even fit something outside. The only thing we know is "outside." Outside is one. There are not two outsides with regard to us. All we understand about whatever is outside the universe is that it is outside. One. Outside. My particular God is the God Who started the universe. He/It is outside >>> One. Of course He/It is alien. The only way He/It would not be completely alien, is that He/It has ascribed some of His/Its qualities to within the universe... at least in artificial form. If He/It had ascribed all of His/Its qualities to within, then He/It would totally be part of the universe, and science might be able to track Him/It down, someday. But having been "outside" at the time He/It created the universe shows our God to be ONE. Did you catch that? He/It is your God, too, even though you barely recognize Him/It. Why? Because He/It created the stuff that you are made of, just like all of the rest of the stuff of the universe. Scientific proof that God exists! Case closed. Was that like a game of words or ? ''What does outside-the-universe mean? It means that we know nothing about it.'' ''We don't know if It has more than one unit. We don't even know if the terms "one" or "multiple" even fit something outside.'' ''My particular God is the God Who started the universe.'' Extremely conflicting statements right there. You say we don't know anything about what's outside the universe (in fact science doesn't even know if there can be something outside) but then you claim to know your god is the one that created the universe, do you not see the flawed logic in this? A kid would. |
|
|
|
|
Remember, DO NOT QUOTE YOUR PREVIOUS WEEKLY REPORTS, YOU WILL GET 0 STAKES IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THIS RULE!
|
|
|
|
Here's a legit question: If the sun is under the dome and rotates above the flat earth, what is the closest and furthest away points of the sun from the dome's wall?
When the distance to the Sun is measured with a sextant it's about 3,000 miles. The Sun itself is not a physical object, it's holographically projected off of the domes mirrored surface and its position is dependant in part on the observer. However to answer your question based on my understanding, the Sun stays the same distance from the dome at all times. A few years back Japan tested the world's most powerful green LASER, they fired it at the north star Polaris and it bounced off the dome and hit Soldier Field in Chicago, IL. Using this LASER the distance to the dome could be measured with great precision. Once this has been done it would simply be a matter of subtracting the Sun's distance to get the distance between the Sun and dome. This is of course assuming the sextant is measuring the height of the projection and not just the point it reflects off the dome. ''The Sun itself is not a physical object, it's holographically projected off of the domes mirrored surface'' No it's actually a big banana that shines, see I can make retarded statements too without any proof! |
|
|
|
Show us a machine that doesn't have a designer. A cell. Plants, animals, etc etc. Prove it. Unfortunately you have to prove your claims since you are trying to prove god's existence. Your argument for god's existence is that ''all machines have creators/designers'' however you didn't prove that, you just stated it which is what usually happens with your ''arguments''. Even you prove all ''machines have makers'' which you wont, it would still not prove god's existence, it would only prove that machines have creators. What is the evidence that it's only 1 creator and not multiple? hehe you get rekt again. You seem to be laying down groundwork for what constitutes proof. Prove that your groundwork is the method for proving something. However, I showed a long time ago how C&E, combined with entropy, combined with complexity, proves that God exists. You have claimed that you have rebutted my proof. Prove that you have rebutted my proof. You only ''proved'' that those things indicate there is a creator/creators, nothing in your ''proof'' indicates that it has to be your particular god and not multiple gods, maybe aliens, maybe something else. So your proof, again, does not show it's god. |
|
|
|
Are you fucking serious? There are seriously corrupt cops, and they often get away with things they shouldn't get away with. I'm not going to debate that. But are you seriously, genuinely trying to say that cops are worse than fucking ISIS? They murder people all the time. They destroy entire towns, they decapitate people and record video of it. Get the fuck out of here with this bullshit, of course ISIS is worse. Get the fuck out of your bubble and understand that there is a world outside of people being discriminated for being black, and instead of them being racially profiled they're just executed instead. Jesus Christ, get a grip.
You see a cop. You trust cops. You walk up to the cop and say "hi." The cop shoots you, because he happens to be a bad cop... or he is simply scared of you for no reason. Or, he doesn't shoot you, but you never know for sure until you try it. You see a member of ISIS. You turn and run. You don't get shot. So, who is better? The cop who shoots you, or ISIS who doesn't? If you KNEW the cop was going to shoot only the bad people, your trust would be well founded. As it is, you can't trust him. But you CAN trust ISIS... to shoot you. So you run and are safe. Cops are way worse than ISIS. That particular cop is indeed not good, however majority of cops 99.99% wont shoot you like that, therefore the majority of cops are good. |
|
|
|
Desperate now badecker?
Actually, pitying you a little.  Still waiting for those statistics to back up any of your claims, I'm guessing we are not getting those, are we? Most cops are good people. |
|
|
|
Show us a machine that doesn't have a designer. A cell. Plants, animals, etc etc. Prove it. Unfortunately you have to prove your claims since you are trying to prove god's existence. Your argument for god's existence is that ''all machines have creators/designers'' however you didn't prove that, you just stated it which is what usually happens with your ''arguments''. Even you prove all ''machines have makers'' which you wont, it would still not prove god's existence, it would only prove that machines have creators. What is the evidence that it's only 1 creator and not multiple? hehe you get rekt again. |
|
|
|
|
Week 14 is fully counted! Let me know if there are any mistakes.
|
|
|
|
''Machines have designers and makers'' prove it.
Perhaps you could prove that you posted the above, first.  Not all machines have designers or makers, therefore machines don't always need them so your argument is trash. Show us a machine that doesn't have a designer. A cell. Plants, animals, etc etc. |
|
|
|
Hello you accepted two post and you paid out one please give a better explanation for that
What do you mean exactly? |
|
|
|
|
^^^ Negative trust users are not allowed, please read the rules before applying.
|
|
|
|
But Young’s words and interests, some of which a judge has ruled could be used against him at trial, were incendiary. He honored a pre-Nazi far-right German group on his license plate, tattooed the logo of an SS unit on his arm and used Hitler’s birthday as an online password. Authorities say he joked with informants about wanting a female slave, smuggling weapons into federal court, and torturing and killing FBI agents.
This is where the difference lies. People kid around all the time. People kid around in generalities all the time. Some people get angry at political situations, and wish they could do something, but simply are letting off steam by what they say. Cops, judges, FBI, etc., do things to other people that other people only talk about. When did some joker's speaking when he was letting off steam, EVER send a person (other than himself) to prison, or cause him to pay a fine? Never! It's the fear-speech of the judge and the cops that sends a person to prison. Somebody sits at home and harmlessly smokes a joint. Who has he harmed? Nobody! But the talk of some cops and a judge sends the guy to prison, and ruins his life with a felony record. All that ISIS does is to fight with weapons. Cops and judges destroy lives with simple words. Cops are way worse than ISIS. You should learn that cops merely interpret and follow existing laws, they do not create the laws, ever. A cop must follow the law, it's not his fault that smoking marijuana is illegal. Judges can't make it legal either. ''A bill can be introduced in either chamber of Congress by a Senator or Representative who sponsors it. Once a bill is introduced, it is assigned to a committee whose members will research, discuss, and make changes to the bill. The bill is then put before that chamber to be voted on. If the bill passes one body of Congress, it is then presented to the other body to go through a similar process of research, discussion, changes, and voting. Once both bodies vote to accept a bill, they must work out any differences between the two versions. Then both chambers vote on the same exact bill and, if it passes, they present it to the President. The President then considers the bill. The President can approve the bill and sign it into law or not approve (veto) a bill.'' Again badecker arguing with no facts. |
|
|
|
|
Will be counting stakes for week 14 tomorrow!
|
|
|
|
So I am finally shaking the foundations of your evolution religion! Good. You just might come to reality and realize evolution is a hoax. Where is your example of beneficial mutation? Just because a bunch of people think that a mutation might be beneficial, do we take a vote to see who is right? How do we know that a critter thinks that the change is beneficial? If a fish grew legs via evolution, where did the legs start? They started as nubs, or even less. No benefit in nubs. Do you think the fish foresaw that one of its descendants thousands or hundreds of thousands of years later would benefit from legs? Where are your DNA samples for any of the fossils that are considered missing links? Without them, there is no way to tell that all the so-called missing links were not their own animal brought about by some non-evolution method that we don't understand yet. What about the fact that there are multitudes of fossil creatures that just appeared, fully developed, without something to have developed from? Where is your proof of even one pure random happening, so that we can see that there is a possibility that things were not programmed to exist as they are? After all, physics doesn't deviate in producing results. If it did, nobody could expect to ever get the same result from the same scientific experiment. Where is natural selection? After all, nature has made multitudes of fantastic forms of life. Scientists and engineers can't make even one. And nature has fantastic reproduction in all its life forms. Scientists don't even entirely understand how it works. Why is nature so smart beyond all scientists and engineers? When you look at the answers evolution people give to these and many other questions, you don't even realize that the answers skirt the questions, rather than answering them. But that is all right for you. You need to keep your evolution religion intact, right? Evolution isn't just a hoax. It's a complete fabrication. You have points in your questions, and even if answers skirt the questions, as you say, how come you so easily accept another solution to the questions, one which has absolutely zero proof? Why don’t you apply the same suspicion and scrutiny to this solution? 500 years ago, we did not even know electricity existed. Might have experienced it via static electricity, but did not really know what it was. Just because we don’t know – yet – does not mean it is not true. 2-4000 years ago, people believed in a multitude of gods, as an absolutely undisputed fact. They would think you were crazy if you told them there was only one. How were they less correct vs. your beliefs now? I think you would say they are, because it’s obvious and maybe even downright insane to you – but prove it to me! Just because scientists and engineers can’t make life yet, has zero to do with if any given thing is true or not. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians knew of electricity. The whole point isn't about accepting something other than evolution. The whole point is finding a reason to accept evolution. There are so many things against evolution as it is expressed in its theory, that the whole theory should be scrapped. The evolution story keeps changing because it is make believe. In fact, we can't even imagine a form of evolution that would fit the facts of reality. The point is, if you want evolution to be real, find some way to formulate it that makes sense and fits the facts. If you can't, drop it, and find what is real. Evolution doesn't fit the facts, and hasn't even been proven to exist, once. All the talk about evolution is simply talk without proof. Evolution is a hoax. EDIT: Do you see what you and Astargath (in the previous post) are doing? You can't answer the questions that I asked, scientifically. So you bring my religion into it. By bringing religion into it, rather than answering scientifically, you are showing what you really think evolution is. To you, evolution seems to be a religion. We have answered you points many times, but we don’t know it all either – that does not mean it’s not true. So here goes again, and I don’t even have to look any of this up. 1) Dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus Rex, had tiny useless for arms. How did they get so useless? They devolved, probably from an ancestor, smaller, that needed them. Or you suggest that they were created useless? (Yes I know there are other theories). What’s the purpose of programming, if it’s useless what you program? This big meat eater found out, generation after generator, I don’t need arms, I just need size, big legs and a hug month, and I’ll do just fine. 2) There really exist no missing link, - I’m a missing link, you are a missing link, we are all missing links. Humans have leftovers, tail bone, thirteenth rib, appendix, little toe, wisdom teeth, neck rib, third eyelid, extrinsic ear muscles (like dogs and cats) and male nipples and body hair. They are all missing link between those that have and not have – that’s just humans! 3) No species appeared fully developed. There is no such thing as fully developed in evolution. We are all in a transition state, between now and the next “new” species. 4) Our proof of random is the billion billion of individuals of each species that live right now – we are going in circles here! 5) Why is nature smarter than our scientists and engineers?!? I don’t know, it just is! We are not there yet; it’s as simple as that! There you go, now answer mine! Evolution is fact, there is no programming! 5) Also this argument is meaningless because it doesn't take in count time. Complexity can arise from very simple rules, if you also add millions and millions of years to that you get the complexity you see today without us being able to ''replicate it''. Scientists have developed countless cures for countless natural and unnatural diseases, scientists have developed planes,cars,rockets, what more do you really want to consider them ''smarter'' than nature? |
|
|
|
...
4. @Astargath no you didn't explain it, you posted memes and are unable to articulate your argument. You're asking the reader to believe the Earth is a globe based on unspecified equations and can't produce them for analysis. That's some nice fucking strategy to keep me from debunking the claims you copy&pasted. I can prove mathematically that adding more wells (or sticks) to Eratosthenes (was he even a real person?) experiment doesn't change the results, I can add any number of wells and the results are the same for a globe or a plane.
But all formulas and even a method that you or anyone can do are found here: https://takethisskepticalblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/how-to-disprove-the-flat-earth/:^) welcome to reality. That blog post debunks a strawman flat Earth model; Eratosthenes works for both a globe and a plane, it proves neither.  What exactly is wrong about that flat earth model? Are you changing definitions and other stuff again to fit your twisted view of reality? They used a Flat Earth meme (meme is short for blasphemy) as their fucking model. FE threatens anybody who's an atheist, a belief system only possible in the heliocentric spinning globe model; FE is literally blasphemy for an atheist. The Synagogue of Satan created atheism, the Jew needs useful idiots like atheists in his never ending war on God. If you need "what exactly" is wrong you can start with the fact atmospheric refraction, magnification and lensing aren't taken into account in either fucking model. The globe is a fucking crock of shit and every argument or so-called proof is a strawman, a lie, a forgery or a distortion of the facts. I'd go on but, the fact these factors are missing means that whole fucking blog post is garbage.  ROFL everytime someone debunks flat earth you come up with new ''stuff'' to throw around, REFRACTION, THE SUN IS NOT REAL, IT'S MAGIC, give me a break lmao. |
|
|
|
''ince there are a lot more cops, and since cops are treacherous at times, cops are way worse than ISIS, who honestly does what they were designed to do.'' Just because a group is designed to do something doesn't mean they are morally good, assassins are designed to kill people, hitmen are designed to kill people, no one thinks they are good, no one. We know they are morally wrong, we know killing people is bad, you should know that too because you believe in the bible, cops are there to protect and serve, the few bad cops that don't are bad, the rest are good, the overwhelming majority of cops are good people, end of story.
So you are actually serious? No troll? How can someone with more than 60 IQ say those things? It's so retarded it's insane. The simple fact that close to 100% of the cops will back up the police union, no matter what it says or does, no matter what the truth is, no matter what is good or bad, right or wrong, shows that cops are way worse than ISIS. What is the police union? There are lots of those as far as I know. You would have to prove that close to 100% of cops actually back up the police union and then prove that the police union is corrupt, your argument is going off the rails because you know you are wrong. I debunked your shit with facts, now you are crying. Most cops are good people. Way worse than ISIS. All I see is: I have no arguments or statistics to back up my claims so I'm going to keep yelling it. |
|
|
|
''Machines have designers and makers'' prove it.
Perhaps you could prove that you posted the above, first. Not all machines have designers or makers, therefore machines don't always need them so your argument is trash. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
